In all seriousness, this is about one-half cops scared the brass will find out they're outside their patrol areas snoozing or taking trips to Boston (or wherever the hell Lowell cops go when they're on the late shift), one-quarter cops who really are doing something wrong shiatting their pants because they know it's only a matter of time before they get caught behind the local crack house or brothel; and one-quarter union reps who could care less about either of the former and are just saying "Cool, something different! Let's make it a contract issue!"

I love this: "But two city unions are blocking the project because they want assurances the data will be used for public safety and not discipline." Yep, their issue with it is that they know they are breaking the rules and they'd get in trouble.

feckingmorons:What are they doing on the taxpayer's time that should not be tracked by GPS. If you're at home for half the day it should be used for discipline.

If they're not doing anything wrong what are they afraid of? Don't cops like that line?

There's a local cop around here who spends seven hours a day at 7-11. If I go to work late and come home early he's in the parking lot either napping or reading a newspaper. He doesn't even pretend to work.

Notabunny:liam76: Notabunny: liam76: Notabunny: So it's a change-of-work-conditions issue which is almost resolved? And it's not costing the public a cent? Why is this a story?

Unless the GPS unit is on the officer, it isn't a change of condition, and is no legitimate concern of a union IMHO.

The officers, the dispatchers, and the City disagree with you.

The city is afraid of the fight.

It may be covered in the contract, and I that case the city signed a very stupid contract. The union shouldn't be allowed to say no to equipment that will protect citizens, good cops, and help stop bad cops from ripping the taxpayers off.

It's not in the contract. That's what they're negotiating right now. If it was just to be used for safety, I don't guess anybody would have objected. But the City wants to use it for disciplining officers and dispatchers, so they get to negotiate the change in work conditions.

My point is there should be no need for it in the contract. A person no longer being able to lie about where they are isn't a change in working conditions.

Police unions have far too much power if they can stop or slow down a program that will help the public, help good cops and make it harder for bad cops to rip people off.

Lsherm:Notabunny: Lsherm: Notabunny: CruiserTwelve: Notabunny: So it's a change-of-work-conditions issue which is almost resolved? And it's not costing the public a cent? Why is this a story?

Because it involves cops who, as we know, are the most corrupt people in the world.

Actually, I don't understand the objection to having GPS in police cars. It's been great in my agency. The dispatchers always know where you are, and more than a few times cops have called for help and haven't had time to give their location. GPS got help to them. I still, however, find it rather disconcerting when a dispatcher calls you and tells you they're getting an alarm from a business you just drove past.

It doesn't sound like they're objecting to using GPS for safety, but rather they're objecting to using GPS for discipline. If the City want's to stick to its argument that the GPS is for safety only, this issue could have been resolved in about 5 seconds.

God forbid public servants are tracked like regular private sector employees. The horror!

It's not like we're paying for them or anything.

In case you've never worked under a contract, changes in the contract need to be negotiated and agreed to.

Thanks for bringing that up. Let me quote the article:

Patrolmen are working on an expired contract.

But really, you just want to excuse accountability. Just come out and say it.

Unions are adverse to the concept of accountability, at least for their members.. Look at teacher's unions

Notabunny:CruiserTwelve: Notabunny: So it's a change-of-work-conditions issue which is almost resolved? And it's not costing the public a cent? Why is this a story?

Because it involves cops who, as we know, are the most corrupt people in the world.

Actually, I don't understand the objection to having GPS in police cars. It's been great in my agency. The dispatchers always know where you are, and more than a few times cops have called for help and haven't had time to give their location. GPS got help to them. I still, however, find it rather disconcerting when a dispatcher calls you and tells you they're getting an alarm from a business you just drove past.

It doesn't sound like they're objecting to using GPS for safety, but rather they're objecting to using GPS for discipline. If the City want's to stick to its argument that the GPS is for safety only, this issue could have been resolved in about 5 seconds.

It is funny in the article where they quote the guy saying it's not going to be used for discipline unless they aren't where they are supposed to be, so basically it is going to be used for discipline.

However I don't have a problem with this. In most any other job I would say this is not good management, but when it comes to managing authority they should be kept on a short leash.

ReapTheChaos:This is why unions need to go away, they're nothing but a remnant of a bygone era. It's not the 1920s anymore, we have more than enough laws on the books to protect workers from unfair/unsafe labor practices and courts to take care of any problems that arise.

"unions are blocking the project because they want assurances the data will be used for public safety and not discipline."

They're public servants, it should be used for both.

This is why unions need to go away, they're nothing but a remnant of a bygone era. It's not the 1920s anymore, we have more than enough laws on the books to protect workers from unfair/unsafe labor practices and courts to take care of any problems that arise.

My immediate reaction is that the City was stupid for paying for a GPS service they aren't using. The city was also stupid for paying $50K to add devices they KNOW the Union is going to fight against. Then it hit me. It's easier to apologize and beg for forgiveness, than it is to ask for permission. So the City tells the people, "X-amount has been spent, and that big evil Union is making sure it's wasted, let's all be mad at them!" And people who aren't in Unions, and especially employers, hate Unions, so it's an easy target.

Be mad at the Police Union all you want, but they're doing nothing wrong here. These details should have been hammered out long before money was spent. The City wasted the money because they figured they could blame the Unions for blocking the implementation and face no consequences for wasting money on a project that wont see the light of day.

jaylectricity:Somebody I know drives a school bus in our town. She did her job, picked up and dropped off kids at school. At lunch she goes home, or whatever to wait for the afternoon rides or sometimes she's on-call. She parks her bus in the middle of town, at a gym and goes in to get some cardio.

Some nitwit calls the city asking why they're paying for a city employee to go to the gym.

Although it's stupid to make that call to get someone fired, this is a different story.